24 March 2007

Rush, on learning that Elizabeth Edwards has been diagnosed with Stage IV metastatic breast cancer:

What is their religion? I don't doubt they're religious people, but, we talked about this. Political people are different than you and I. And, you know, most people when told a family member's been diagnosed with the kind of cancer Elizabeth Edwards has, they turn to God. The Edwards turned to the campaign.Their religion is politics and the quest for the White House. And that's -- it's not just with them, I mean, it's part and parcel of political people -- undergo all this stuff, the media anal all over their private life being made public even by the candidates themselves -- it's all part of the drill.[...] If you're Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, how do you now attack John Edwards? Not a problem for Hillary, the Clinton [inaudible] will find a way. But Barack, it's going to be a challenge. [...] What the Edwards campaign is going to do here is see what the reaction is within the ranks of Democrat [sic] voters -- as far as this announcement is concerned -- and then go on from there. If there is not a big jump, if this doesn't cause a breakout, if this doesn't cause a big uptick, then, at some point, Senator Edwards will probably have to suspend the campaign.

Yes, death wishes for political figures on either side of the aisle is despicable, but you can find people on the fringe wishing for people to die on both the left and the right. Responsible, mainstream political commentators don't make comments like that, liberal or conservative.

I don't think it was the discussion of the "political ramifications" of Ms. Edward's cancer in the Limbaugh quote that was deemed offensive so much as the implication that the Edwards are Godless, soulless power seekers.

how about this - what the Edwards decide to do is the Edwards business! How novel. Most cancer survivors agree that continuing to live your life is a positive thing. Were Edwards to quit immediately, it would be acknowledgement of his wife's forthcoming demise... which might be a reality, but it may not be what she needs.

And, as for most people "turning to God" - well, Rush just thinks that 'cause he's a stupid fcuk.

Most Americans are believers in God; around 75% feel that their relationship with God is "very important" in their lives. Only 10% or less are atheists (despite their outspokenness). So Rush's statement is undoubtedly true.

One would have to either be a "stupid fcuk" or someone who is totally clueless about the reality of religion in America to think otherwise.

I am not tarring all conservatives with the ill sentiments, as I do not wish particular ill to Tony Snow (though I might wish him a painful thrombosed hemorrhoid). But let's not pretend that the left-wing fringe is worse or particularly better than the looney right-wing fringe.

(to her credit, it seems that Goldberg deleted the more offensive comments from her site. I'm actually surprised)

But anon 3:42 was more or less right -- the implication that the Edwards' were motivated wholly by politics as opposed to the somehow more pure motives of godly republicans, that their announcement was calculated to exploit her terminal disease for short-term political gain -- that's vile and horrible and completely in character for an amoral monster like Rush.

Not only is the left wing fringe worse, but the left wing standard-bearers are certainly more despicable. You proudly link to The Daily ("Screw Em") Kos, for example.

The right-wing site to which you refer has been taken down. There are no comments there to review. But from the comments on the left wing site you link to, I don't see any mention of death wishes toward Ms. Edwards. Only questionably appropriate comments about Mr. Edwards' motivations. But also a left-winger who admitted he celebrated the death of Reagan.

little green footballs had a thread a week ago where its members were talking about their resentment that jimmy carter wasn't killed by islamic terrorists when it was revealed they had plans to do it.

look it up.

and unlike on the huffington post (where everybody commented anonymously on the cheney bombing) people on little green footballs who made comments about carter needing to be killed were well-documented members of that website. well-documemented members, most of all because it's impossible to comment on that site anonymously, and its heavily moderated and filtered regarding who gets to post and who gets blocked and banned.

charles johnson (the founder of little green footballs) even admitted the people who made the death-wishes for carter were genuine, long-standing members of his site, and then went on to say it wasn't as big of a deal as people on huffington post wishing cheney was killed... posters which were, again, completely anonymous and could have been anybody on any side who had ten seconds on their hand to register with the site.

but you know, there's no way a republican did that type of thing, because obviously the story went no where and gave republicans nothing to smear democrats endlessly with.

I'm not gonna play the "your lunatic fringe is crazier and meaner than mine" game. Because that was not the point. The point is that the right wing has a cadre of vile hate-spewing scumbags who are prominent within the party's institution and are embraced by the movement as representing their position. I'm talking about Rush, Coulter, Donohue, Savage, and the like.

How many conservatives distanced themselves from Coulter when she called Edwards a faggot? Not many; none repudiated her and she was right back on FOX the next day. How many denounced her when she suggested that we invade the middle east to "kill them or convert them to Christianity"? Yet she remains a keynote speaker at conservative events and gets standing ovations when she speaks. I could supply a dozen examples of similar hate-filled, bigoted comments from each. yet they remain lionized and influential in the movement.

The left has nobody like them. Maybe we should -- it seems to be an effective way of whipping up controversy. I'm just as glad we don't.

I'm not a reader (or linker) of LGF, so I did miss those comments. I accept that there are jerks on both sides. But it's not just the "lunatic fringe" of the left that's despicable. There are still diaries on the Daily Kos as we speak that suggest that Tony Snow's (possibly) recurrent tumor is a result of his "lying" and his political stance. and we all know what he said about the American contractors who were killed and strung up on the bridge in Fallujah ("Screw them"). If that is a "lunatic fringe" website, then what do you consider yourself by linking to them here?

A more interesting question I notice was asked, and one that is more relevant to us as physicians, is the concept that Ms. Edwards might have trouble finding a physician to treat her given her husband's infamy and notoriety. Assuming she desired some sort of experimental treatment, would there be enough informed consent/release of liability forms to satisfy an Oncologist who might potentially face the wrath of the infamous John Edwards? I wonder.

Bear in mind that there are literally thousands of diarists on DKos, and a diary is as easy to put up as a comment is -- anonymous and not edited by kos. There are hundreds of diaries posted daily, and they are explicitly *not* endorsed by the management. So I suppose you can mine the diaries and find nasty stuff, but it's not representative of the site or the person, any more than the comments on LGF are. I've read DKos on a near daily basis for over four years (amazing, that it's been that long already) and the "front page" (which is kos and his approved fellows) is highly partisan, but reasonable and pragmatic and geared towards winning elections and supporting the progressive movement. You will rarely find incendiary rhetoric there.

As for his "screw them" comment, well, it was widely reported in the right-wing blogosphere. Less well reported, I suspect, was how immediately his comment was denounced by his fellow left-wingers, and his extended and heartfelt apology and explanation.

I am proud to link to Kos, and hope that he and the rest of Left Blogistan are successful in generating a viable and successful progressive movement. I had a diary on DKos for a while but dropped it because I wanted to go off-topic (into medical stuff) too much. Now maybe I err the other way -- too much politics and not enough medicine.

You need to name a prominent figure on the left who criticized Tony Snow for continue to serve as White House press secretary rather than turn to God and fight his cancer. Not a blogger. Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter have large public following. Much larger than some guy who write something on a blog.

You wrote:Not only is the left wing fringe worse, but the left wing standard-bearers are certainly more despicable. You proudly link to The Daily ("Screw Em") Kos, for example.

I don't understand what you mean here. Rush Limbaugh is very, very mainstream conservative. He makes his living by having millions of conservative listen to him.

Has Jon Stewart ever done this? What about Bill Maher? I honestly don't know. Maybe they have. But you can't really characterize anonymous authors as the same as the famous radio talkshow host in the country. Do you even believe what you are saying?

not to defend kos in the 'screw em' incident, because it was a tactless comment..

something which a LOT of people on his site pointed out to him immediately.

but, if i recall correctly, at the time that specific story broke, the details were that they were killed escorting oil company employees through fallujah where they were killed in a fire fight with insurgents, and in the process a significant number of civilians (including children) were caught in the crossfire or mistaken for insurgents and killed accidently also.

that was what he was reacting to more than anything; that they (the american contractors) had either directly participated in killing civilians, or had at least caused civilian death by their presence.

you might not like that that objection would even be raised, under the reasoning that we're 'there to help them' or 'why don't you get mad at the insurgents instead' etc., and as a republican you would have good company in saying that. but from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe the war is justified or moral (ie. the majority of americans), it is a completely reasonable reaction to have.

the wording of his reaction that day, yeah, maybe not so much.

so i don't think it's fair to completely invalidate all the civil and productive discourse that happens on that site (in my and shadowfax's opinion, of course), just because of one momentary lapse of judgement or tact, and to say the site is a hotbed of hate and immorality because of that one moment of carelessness.

Your stance is your own to have, and my sympathies to you, because it is not a happy one. However, when you stalk through the comments threads on a blog where a differing view is held and espoused, you write with scorn, condescension and not a little bit of hubris.

This obviously isn't your cup of tea. Why not just frequent blogs which share your views? You aren't seeking to be exposed to a different point of view, so why inflict yours here?

The internets are big. They have many blogs. Find another one.

At any rate, my take on the Edwards decision relative to this post on Rush is that he is worried about something.

That something would be....the sanctity of marriage. And what a strong, healthy marriage of equal partners looks like. And what genuine values are. And how integrity isn't faked. The Edwards' approach to moving forward isn't in keeping with the dominionists' false propheteering (intentional bad pun). And all of that phony marriage values garbage just got exposed for what it is - and is not.

"Why not just frequent blogs which share your views? You aren't seeking to be exposed to a different point of view, so why inflict yours here?

The internets are big. They have many blogs. Find another one."

It would be oh so comforting for you and those who think like you if people like me would just STFU, I'm sure. But it is healthy for you to realize that not everyone thinks like you, and that just because you believe something so very strongly does not mean that you are correct. Your opinion is no better than mine, and I enjoy teaching people like you how things really are and inflicting my viewpoint on you.

So no, I won't just disappear. If you don't like what I have to say, then ignore me.

You misunderstand. This N=1 loves to debate - but not to fight. You brought unsupported points, extreme exaggeration and hyteric rants. But nowhere did you bring reason, valid and reliable evidence and a logical argument. It's unfair to debate someone who is unarmed.

Since when did you become an administrator of this blog? How bout you go find someone else's shoulder to look over and some other place to stick your administrative nose in? K?

I don't go to your blog because I'm not interested in anything you have to say. I come here because of the ER stories, but if shadowfax is going to bait his conservative counterparts with left-wing talking points from Kos, then I'm going to respond in similar tone.

Shadowfax

About me: I am an ER physician and administrator living in the Pacific Northwest. I live with my wife and four kids. Various other interests include Shorin-ryu karate, general aviation, Irish music, Apple computers, and progressive politics. My kids do their best to ensure that I have little time to pursue these hobbies.

Disclaimer

This blog is for general discussion, education, entertainment and amusement. Nothing written here constitutes medical advice nor are any hypothetical cases discussed intended to be construed as medical advice. Please do not contact me with specific medical questions or concerns. All clinical cases on this blog are presented for educational or general interest purposes and every attempt has been made to ensure that patient confidentiality and HIPAA are respected. All cases are fictionalized, either in part or in whole, depending on how much I needed to embellish to make it a good story to protect patient privacy.

All Content is Copyright of the author, and reproduction is prohibited without permission.